Johnson v. Avery

Convicted rapist William Johnson (plaintiff) was serving a life sentence at a Tennessee state prison. He acted as a jailhouse lawyer, meaning a nonlawyer who used his basic knowledge of the law to help other prisoners prepare legal documents, including federal writs of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their detention. A Tennessee prison regulation barred inmates from advising or assisting fellow inmates regarding writ preparation. Consequently, Johnson’s conduct resulted in his disciplinary transfer to the prison’s maximum-security building. Johnson filed a document entitled a “motion for law books and a typewriter” in federal court. The motion sought relief from his confinement in the maximum-security building, so the district court treated it as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court concluded that the prison regulation was void because it effectively denied illiterate prisoners access to federal habeas corpus because the prisoners were incapable of applying for relief themselves and the state had no program helping prisoners apply for relief. Having concluded that the regulation Johnson violated was void, the district court ordered that Johnson be restored to the regular prison population. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the state’s legitimate interest in limiting the practice of law to licensed lawyers justified the regulation despite any burden it placed on access to federal habeas corpus. The United States Supreme Court granted review.